Re: Re: releasing SqueakMap (was "One more update for 3.2.1?"... again...)

Hi Gang,

Boy, do I agree with John on this one. I had hoped that 3.4 would be a  
stable, finalized
version of 3.2-4956, plus a few cleaned up details and SM, and said so  
in a recent
message to Scott Wallace on the squeak-dev list. Unfortunately, someone  
took issue
with the tone of that message which got lost in the noise.

I have SWT, 2.8, and 3.2-4956, plus two VMs (3.2.8b9 and 3.2.2) that  
John and Marcel
were kind enough to help me with. I'm sticking with this combo until  
the next stable release
is finalized before I even begin to even think about upgrading. The  
Squeak power-users
can enjoy themselves with pre-alpha, alpha, and beta code. John's buddy  
(client?) is
absolutely right about the risk of using alpha and/or beta software.

Cheers, Roger.....

On Wednesday, Nov 20, 2002, at 23:29 America/Denver, John M McIntosh  
wrote:

> Well I should wade in and point out a few things that I've noticed  
> over the years.
>
> a) Many users will use 3.xFINAL as the preferred deployment package  
> because they feel 3.x+1Alpha is too experimental for them to risk  
> using because they are not power-squeak users. In fact I still  
> encounter people who are using 2.8 or 3.0 because until recently 3.2  
> was 3.2gama. Mm tonight I was going to download 3.4alpha to some ones  
> desktop but he pointed out he didn't run alpha or beta software on his  
> machine because it was too risky so I had to promise that 3.4ALPHA  
> wasn't going to hose his machine (a true story).
>
> I'd think one should finalize 3.2 and stuff SM into it mostly because  
> that's a way for people to distribute content/apps/changesets/? in the  
> 3.2. environment. I say finalize, although it's final mostly because  
> there's a few patchs etc from 3.3 (I think?) I'm sure one can of  
> course say this SM is 3.2 or 3.4 or 3.2/3.4 compatible...
>
> Ps zap any thoughts of 3.2.x (tertiary numbers).
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 05:42  PM, Doug Way wrote:
>
>>
>> Craig Latta wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Doug--
>>>
>>>> Also, I suppose if the goal is to move 3.4 toward a release
>>>> relatively soon (in the next month or two?) then getting the SM
>>>> bootstrap into the 3.2 series becomes less urgent.
>>>
>>>         Why can't we leave 3.2 alone and make 3.4 the venue of  
>>> SqueakMap's
>>> mainstream debut?
>>>
>>>         Will someone please summarize the rationale for revisiting a  
>>> "final"
>>> release here, and for getting into tertiary version numbers?
>>
>> ....
>
>> Now that we're working toward 3.4, and we've decided that it should  
>> be finalized relatively soon, I suppose there wasn't a great need to  
>> split off 3.2.  Oh well. :-)  However, there were a lot of  
>> 3.2-compatible packages already in place on SqueakMap, so it seemed  
>> like SqueakMap should have some sort of debut in the 3.2 world.  (I  
>> was thinking in my recent message that since we already split off  
>> 3.2.1, we might as well add the SqueakMap bootstrap too, but that's  
>> not super-important.)
>>
>>
> --
> ======================================================================= 
> ====
> John M. McIntosh <[email protected]> 1-800-477-2659
> Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
> ======================================================================= 
> ====
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation
>